User:The way, the truth, and the light/What I believe

What I believe
I believe that dishonesty is wrong. I believe that Wikipedia could only be better with more honest people and fewer dishonest people. I believe that it's wrong to ban people for having the wrong ideas, as long as they're honest; while allowing people with ideas you agree with to continue now matter how dishonest and abusive they are.

I believe that it's wrong that William Connolley and his allies are able to dishonestly enforce the orthodox view of global warming, and its mention in other articles in which only tangential relevance could be shown.

I believe that it's wrong that the homosexuals and their allies are able to suppress criticism of homosexuality on Wikipedia. I believe that, though it is in truth a minor issue, that there ought not to be actual nudity on Wikipedia, and that the citation of WP:NOTCENSORED for this and related purposes only disguises the treatment of ideas - the field which the word censorship ought primarily to refer to.

I believe that the recent arbitration case involving CAMERA and pro-Israel trolls ought not to be heard, solely on the basis that the evidence of the activities that allegedly necessitate arbitrations consists of private e-mail that should never have become public, and that to prosecute such a case from that would be dishonorable no matter what I may think of the participants.

I believe that the truth is more important than any rules. Thus, I know that the manner in which WP:OR and related policies are implemented is wrong, as if there were no difference between plausible extrapolations and obvious nonsense. If an editor does not know the difference, he is naturally not qualified to be editing that article. This situation leads to a significant proportion of these policies' use being in a hypocritical and dishonest manner as ammunition against disliked views on controversial subjects. Such is, of course, the natural result of any policy not conforming to reason.

I believe that, similarly, WP:BLP is abused; the criticisms I and others made at the time of this arbitration case, and hence, are largely correct. Though there are of course legitimate reasons to treast BLPs with special caution. the actual use of the policy is largely as a weapon to keep disliked people and opinions off Wikipedia. As well, the practice of immediately deleting BLPs that are apparently non-neutral, but not libellous, prevents anyone from improving them, and forcing anyone that is interested to rewrite the article from scratch is absurd when much of the work has already been done, and no doubt is often done (overriding consensus) when the existence of any article on the person is felt objectionable.

I believe that - and I would be dishonest not to mention it - the treatment of pedophilia here is abominable. Banning pedophiles from Wikipedia not only is inherently wrong as using the machinery of power against people based only on their ideas, but polarizes and distorts our coverage of pedophilia, and worse, serves the despicable group Perverted Justice. Pedophiles, no matter if they might be harmful in the real world, are not harmful to Wikipedia, no matter my personal opinion of their ideas. Rather, censorship and lies are harmful to Wikipedia, for they are the enemies of truth and ever shall be. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)